The right to shoot tyrants, not deer

[ExpandMyMind]

Oh and you fotgot one thing,KILLING,WE mastered killing,KIlling those who attack other countrys,killing those that Kill their own people and killing those that attack us,Not to mention killing ourseves trying to save others from being killed, Yup never ever forget about the killing.

And killing those who attack oppressive governments you happen to back.

Yeah though, how could I forget killing?

[The Unseen]

And killing those who attack oppressive governments you happen to back.

Yeah though, how could I forget killing?

He HE,aint we some stinkers

[Mr Right Wing]

Did the revolutionaries have that right? No. Did they ensure that citizens did have that right in the next revolution? Yes.

How would you ensure freedom over a tyrant if the situation arose?

Hang on you have a Democracy these days.

If you dont like the way something is run you either campaign for changes, join a party and put your view across or even start your own party. Terrorism is unacceptable which is what you're proposing.

[Cradle of Fish]

Spoken like a true sheep. The point isn't about winning. The point is about standing on one's feet and standing for freedom not being a slave to a government. Dying in revolt is one heck of a lot better than living on one's knees - for some of us

Gandhi did it and he didn't have one rifle on his side. The blacks in the united states weren't being fairly represented by the government and they didn't start shooting tyrants. It's true there were armed parties in both struggles, but who was most successful?

I think arming yourselves would make it easier for a tyrants soldiers to dispatch you. I also think a soldier is more likely to fire upon an armed rebel than a peaceful protest.

[aztek]

lol, guerilla war in korea\veitnam\iraq\afganistan say you are wrong.

[AsteroidX]

add mali via US contracors to that list Aztec

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

lol, guerilla war in korea\veitnam\iraq\afganistan say you are wrong.

such stable and thriving economies and nations they are too.

[Cradle of Fish]

Guerilla warfare isn't aimed towards defeating an enemy in the conventional sense, it is more aimed at making the fight so costly for the invading force that they can no longer afford to fight. I have no doubt that there would be strong pockets of resistance in the United States if such a scenario were to transpire. But having weapons is not enough. The different militias would have to coordinate their efforts, otherwise they'd be attacking a superior force hoping that they give up before the bullets or supplies run out.

If those resisting can muster the organisation to defeat the US army it's a wonder they waited until the civil war began to utilise it.

Not to mention the most glaring question an American guerilla war would face - how far would they go to ensure victory? The Vietcong were brutal fighters. They would use dead and wounded GI's as bait to catch US soldiers in deadly ambushes. The insurgents in Iraq, who have also been touted as successful guerillas would hide in schools and hospitals to deter the US from bombing them. IEDs and suicide bombers were their idea of viable tactics to defeat the invading force. Would American guerillas go so far?

[Drayno]

Guerilla warfare isn't aimed towards defeating an enemy in the conventional sense, it is more aimed at making the fight so costly for the invading force that they can no longer afford to fight. I have no doubt that there would be strong pockets of resistance in the United States if such a scenario were to transpire. But having weapons is not enough. The different militias would have to coordinate their efforts, otherwise they'd be attacking a superior force hoping that they give up before the bullets or supplies run out.

If those resisting can muster the organisation to defeat the US army it's a wonder they waited until the civil war began to utilise it.

Not to mention the most glaring question an American guerilla war would face - how far would they go to ensure victory? The Vietcong were brutal fighters. They would use dead and wounded GI's as bait to catch US soldiers in deadly ambushes. The insurgents in Iraq, who have also been touted as successful guerillas would hide in schools and hospitals to deter the US from bombing them. IEDs and suicide bombers were their idea of viable tactics to defeat the invading force. Would American guerillas go so far?

I can't say I would know what American guerrillas would do. Considering the US government is already on the job of disarming people, in a possible guerrilla war scenario they've already lost valuable assets that would assist them. More than likely they would be labeled as terrorists, naturally; eventually all believers of liberty would be turned on by the media and the system. The DHS would probably be tasked with taking them out.